Anthropic just published "the single most important workflow for using Claude Code." It is four steps: Explore, Plan, Code, Commit.
Every bioinformatician I know who is good at their job has been doing this for years. Just without the AI part. Here is why it maps so cleanly.
Explore.
For Claude Code: read the relevant files before touching anything. Understand what exists. Map the dependencies.
For bioinformatics: look at the data before you analyze it. Plot the distributions. Check the metadata. Count the NAs. Ask the wet-lab person what they actually did. Read the existing pipeline.
It is a classifier that decides which permission prompts you actually need to see. Safe reads and routine commands run without interrupting you. Anything that looks risky still gets blocked and surfaced for approval.
If you have ever felt like Claude Code is asking you to approve `ls` for the hundredth time today, this is for you.
Before auto mode there were two bad choices.
Approve everything one prompt at a time and spend half your day clicking yes. Or run with `--dangerously-skip-permissions` and pray the model never decides to be creative about which directory to delete from.
Claude Code's /ultraplan is one of the AI feature in a while that actually changed my workflow instead of just speeding it up.
btw, I always use /plan for a new task. /ultraplan is different.
You ask for a plan from your CLI. It gets drafted in the cloud.
You keep coding. A few minutes later you tab over to your browser and the plan is sitting there, and you can highlight any sentence and leave a note on it.
That's it. That's the whole pitch. And it's better than it sounds.
I had not realized how bad the chat interface is for planning until I stopped using it.
Claude Code shipped /ultrareview and almost nobody is talking about what's actually new about it.
It's not "AI reviews your code." We had that.
It's a fleet of reviewer agents that run in the cloud, find bugs in parallel, and then independently reproduce and verify every finding before showing it to you.
Verification is the part everyone is missing.
Single-agent code review has a known weakness: the model decides what to focus on, and you get whatever it noticed.
If it spent its attention budget on naming, you don't hear about the security bug.